PDF Dosyası - Ankara Üniversitesi Kitaplar Veritabanı

tional economy and industry, quite remarkable achievements, due to aState that was almost "everything".In 1945, the decision to introduce multipartism was taken in a topdownfashion, by the President of the Republic, İsmet İnönü. It was a"pacted transition", negotiated betvveen two elite groups, one group representingthe political "centre", and the other the socio-economic "periphery"7 . This type of transition presents the advantage of avoiding violentconflicts, but the disadvantage of starting a non-participatory process,a feature vvhich has survived until now.The 1945-50 period is a vvatershed in the history of the Turkishdemocracy, with the "peripheral" elites starting to have a share in politicalpovver. The monopoly of power vvhich the state elites were exercizingwas going to be increasingly challenged. The public sector-led establishmentof a national economy and industry had induced a private businesssector (the timid beginnings of which went back to the Young Turkera -1908-1918). The groups of entrepreneurs, vvho also benefited fromthe vvar years for further capital accumulation, as well as the groups ofbig land ovvners and farmers became more vocal and claimed participationin political povver. This vvas a considerable novelty in Turkish polity,where political sovereignty vvas traditionally not fragmented. Now, nextto the status groups, dravving their povver from the State, social groups,getting their strength from the economy and society —a bourgeoisieemerging from its infancy- vvere to have access to government. The fragmentationof sovereignty, a fundamental condition of democratization,had at long last been introduced into the Turkish historical formation.In the 1960s and 1970s, the market economy expanded, and togethervvith it, the class differentiations betvveen the entrepreneurial class and abetter organized vvorking class. The centre-periphery (a characteristic of astatus society) did not completely disappear, but Turkey became a capitalisteconomy and a class society. The pluralist regime had allovved differentideologies to compete openly in the political arena. The statistvvorld vievv vvas now faced vvith the social democratic, extreme-left, conservative-liberal,ıslamist, extreme-rihgt ideologies. The State vvas stilithe central actor, but it vvas challenged by different social groupt, vvhichthe mode of modernization, chosen in the 1920s and 1930s, had tried tokeep under control or suppress.To such social, ideological and religious differentiations, as of the1950s, the State elites and especially the military bureaucracy respondedby activating their historical role of the ultimate guardian of the secularrepublic. They exercized a tutelage över representative institutions andgovernments, and intervened in 1960, 1971, 1980 and 1997 vvith different7. Mardin, Şerif (1973), "Center-Periphery Relations: a Key to Turkish Politics?", Daedalus,Winter.236